Why is "pulling the constant out of the limit" a valid algebra step in deriving the infinite geometric sum?
The lecture derives $S_\infty$ by pulling $a/(1-r)$ out of the limit operation as a constant. Why is that legal — isn't the limit acting on the whole expression?
It's legal because of a fundamental property of limits: the limit of a product equals the product of the limits, provided each limit exists.
The formal rule:
If is a constant (doesn't depend on ), then , and the rule becomes:
Applied to the geometric sum:
Here is a constant (doesn't involve ). So:
If , then , so .
Therefore: .
Why this is non-trivial:
The rule fails if either limit doesn't exist. For example, if (oscillates between ) and = a constant, then does NOT equal because doesn't exist.
In the geometric series case, exists (it equals 1 when , or doesn't exist when ). So we can only pull the constant out when convergence holds.
The "pull the constant out" intuition:
A constant is just a number that doesn't change. When you compute a limit, you're asking "where does the expression go as grows?" A constant doesn't go anywhere — it stays put. So multiplying by a constant just rescales whatever the limit is.
For an analogy: if your bank balance grows by per year, the growth rate is independent of the initial deposit. Pulling out the initial deposit (the constant) doesn't change the growth pattern — it just rescales the final number.
Why students get confused:
The notation hides the structure. Once you rewrite as , it becomes obvious that the first factor is invariant under the limit operation.
This is the same pattern as taking in probability, or in calculus. Pulling constants out is universal in linear operators.
For the exam:
You don't need to derive from first principles. Memorise , know it requires , and recognise the algebra step when you see it. But understanding the derivation makes you more confident handling unfamiliar formulations.
Master Level III with our CFA Course
107 lessons · 200+ hours· Expert instruction
Related Questions
Why is my allocation effect NEGATIVE for a sector that had positive returns?
How do I identify the OPTIMAL sector decision in a Brinson attribution table?
What is the difference between Brinson-Hood-Beebower and Brinson-Fachler? Which is on the exam?
Why does the trust pay tax on income instead of the beneficiary?
How bad are the compressed trust tax brackets really? Show me the dollars.
Related Articles
Join the Discussion
Ask questions and get expert answers.